W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: clearing up CONSTRUCT's capabilities

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 12:18:32 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050805161832.GE10891@monkeyfist.com>

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:45:32PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Thanks for the text - I belive the definition of template covers this 
> because it refers to triple patterns which do not need to have variables 
> but if adding the text makes it cleaer, I can do.

As I said before, I believe the definition "covers" it, too, but it's an
implication of two facts: (1) that graph templates are composed of triple
patterns; and (2) that triple patterns can be ground. I think adding the
text makes the useful conclusion more clear. I'd like it to be added. :>

In fact, I'm perfectly happy to see it added and see the example left as-is.

> Not convinced by this example : firstly, the query pattern is about finding 
> names and adding a fixed one is a bit confusing.  Secondly, first examplkes 
> shouldn't be too overloaded.

All these rules for examples that I'm only just learning! :>

> I choose vcard out because, for a simple first example, I didn't want any 
> blank node on output issues.  If vcard had an RDFS class, it could 
> introduce that but there isn't one in the vocabulary.

Neither of these seems relevant to the issue at hand, but -shrug-.

I've followed the group's work actively since the beginning, and even
contributed to some of it, and I had to sit and think very carefully, then
verify my conclusion with one of the editors, about whether ground triples
could appear in the graph template of CONSTRUCT.

Maybe this is because I'm dim-witted. It could also be because it's a bit
subtle and should be spelled out explicitly. I think it's at least both of
these. I've contributed text in two forms, but I leave it entirely to you
how you'd like to explicitly state this feature. But I really would like it
explicitly stated, in some form, in the spec itself. A test case alone is
not sufficient, IMO.

> How about writing this up as a test case instead?  It could be a "real 
> worlkd" example based on your full RSS usage and the needs of a simple 
> first example don't apply.

Yes, I said privately I would do this, and I will. But haven't done it yet.

Thanks,
Kendall Clark
Received on Friday, 5 August 2005 16:20:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT